Actions lie louder than words

Why is it that the left is now outwardly concerned with a president telling the truth? Since when did liberals think that the person in charge of the country should not tell a lie? Seriously, when did this become something that matters to them?

Oh, I know. When it became a means of attacking President George W. Bush.

Long before the 9/11 Commission’s June 16 report (#15), the left was calling President Bush a liar. They have been saying that Bush “misled” the people of America and that the war in Iraq was not justified, except for the tiny, almost insignificant fact that Congress gave their unanimous approval for the war. And since the report came out, they haven also been up in arms over the blurb in the report that says that “there is no credible evidence” that there is a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Well, what the report means is that there is no evidence that the two worked together on any attacks in America. And the Bush administration has never said they did. What they have said is that there is a relationship between the two. Anyone who thinks otherwise must have spent the last several years on another planet.

Does anyone honestly believe that al-Qaeda had operatives in countries all over the planet including the United States but not in Iraq? That the two entities that share a common hatred for America only slightly greater than that of Michael Moore have never gotten together and talked about it? OK, maybe never in the same room, but at the very least, they must have talked by phone or through underlings. Saying that these two have not had some form of contact is like saying Pete Rose didn’t know any bookies.

It has not been that long since everyone on the left or in the liberal media thought a tiny little lie was no big deal. After all, former President Bill Clinton only lied under oath in a court of law — a Federal court at that. Most people call that perjury, which is considered a “criminal action.” For most of us, that would be enough to go to jail.

Just out of curiosity: if he did not lie, why was he disbarred?

But then that’s hardly even worth mentioning, right?

The problem is the typical left attitude that only the offenses of the right are punishable because they, the Democrats, are the rightful rulers of this country. The truly sad thing is that Clinton and the rest of the left think that the fact that he had sex (oral or otherwise is still sex) with a woman other than his wife was what the issue was when the issue was and always will be about the lie he told.

He lied to us, the American people (this is now a fact). He lied to his wife, and who knows what else he lied about or to whom? The words Clinton said in court and then on national television simply to cover his butt in the Paula Jones case with his crossed fingers and Hillary by his side are astounding.

The phrase: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” will be remembered by those who believe in telling the truth.

And he even lied with a straight face.

Webster’s Dictionary defines a lie as “an untrue statement made deliberately,” and a liar as: “Someone who tells lies.”

I bet Al Franken does not have a chapter in his book devoted to Clinton. So, someday I plan on writing The Lying President Clinton and the Lies the Lying Liberal Liar Told (While Under Oath).

While it is unknown if President Bush has lied about why we are in Iraq, Clinton reveals in the part of his book devoted to the Lewinski episode that he did things for “all the wrong reasons.”

I guess that includes lying to America.

Not that that matters to the Left.

Michael Holt is a junior majoring in history and political science.